Holding a Mohali-based developer liable for delay in handing over possession of a flat, the district consumer disputes redressal commission ordered it pay 9% annual interest on the deposited amount along with ₹50,000 as compensation and litigation costs to the homebuyers.
The bench, comprising president SK Aggarwal, member Paramjeet Kaur and member Lt Col Jasbir Singh Bath, partly allowed the complaint against M/s Boparai Developers and its partners.
The complainants had booked a flat in the Fateh Homes project in Sector 127, Sante Majra, Kharar, in December 2018 for ₹15 lakh, and were promised possession by August 30, 2019. The possession was, however, handed over only in May 2021 after the buyers agreed to an alternative flat in the same project. They approached the commission alleging delay, incomplete work, lack of basic amenities and non-utilisation of maintenance funds.
The developer contested the complaint, stating that the change of flat was made with mutual consent and that the delay occurred due to the Covid-19 pandemic, which affected labour and material supply. It also claimed that the flat was complete in all respects and that essential services were available. On the issue of maintenance funds, it submitted that a residents’ welfare association would be formed after full completion of the project.
After examining the record, the commission found that the committed possession date had expired before the onset of the pandemic, and the delay from August 2019 to March 2020 remained unexplained. It held that this period of delay amounted to deficiency in service. The commission also observed that accepting an alternative flat did not take away the complainants’ right to seek compensation for delay.
{{/usCountry}}After examining the record, the commission found that the committed possession date had expired before the onset of the pandemic, and the delay from August 2019 to March 2020 remained unexplained. It held that this period of delay amounted to deficiency in service. The commission also observed that accepting an alternative flat did not take away the complainants’ right to seek compensation for delay.
{{/usCountry}}On other allegations, including incomplete construction and lack of amenities, the commission said the complainants did not produce sufficient evidence to establish deficiencies. It also declined to order a refund of the maintenance amount at this stage, noting that it was linked to formation of a residents’ body.